c4countdown

So, we've reached the end of the first week of Series 65, and although Graeme's chances of a octocentury are up, he definitely has made a strong case this week for being the first octochamp of the series.

Many thought that Liam Herringshaw's challenge on Tuesday would probably be the hardest of his run. But, maybe you should think again, as another one of our own is returning to the battlefront, after appearing just 3 months ago.

He TOUGHED it out then against Andy McGurn, but James Hall has been given a 2nd bite at the cherry following that TOUGHED debate (I'm sure he can give a full explanation later). Will he be the one to stop this "Cole-powered" goliath in his tracks

Join Mike for the recap later.

Casual sip of water mid-conversation with Jeff.

BORONIA

PRONAOI was there in round 1 along with Ryan's BORONIA.

Ooh a scrolling advert on the bottom of the screen

The answer to the TTT is PAGEBOYS.

Has anyone elses TV screen just changed size?

FAVELAS first round after PAGEBOYS teaser

Ryan Taylor wrote:Has anyone elses TV screen just changed size?

Watching it on my laptop in South Cloisters at uni so couldn't tell you - Graeme and James are the antidote to boring essay work.

That woman who seems to stand around in the studios appearing to not do much in particular can be seen over white-haired conundrum-solving man's shoulder.

Early candidate for Handshake of the Year at the end there.

Adam Gillard wrote:Early candidate for Handshake of the Year at the end there.

Also candidate for Best Dancing to the Clock Theme Music During An Easy Numbers Round too.

Interesting. In the last series Andrew Mossford had a second go having been wrongly denied a victory in series 63 against Tom Rowell. His reward? To be pitched in against Ed McCullogh.

And now James's reward for also receiving a dodgy decision is to be put in the path of another player who's obviously flying high. (And to make matters worse he had to suffer the awful Ms Gulati - surely one of the worst DC guests in recent memory - without being able to escape via the FF button).

I realise these games will have been scheduled before Ed and Graeme started their runs, but the production team have a pretty good idea from the auditions who the stars of a series are likely to be.

It looks as though there's a deliberate policy of trying to ensure anyone returning loses "legitimately" second time around. It seems rather rough that the consequence of a decision being challeneged is to be shafted in this way. Strictly speaking Andrew did beat Tom Rowell and James could have beaten Andy on a crucial conundrum, and both are very probably better than many of the people who win 2 or 3 games.

Where people have lost out in this way it would surely be fairer to bring them back as one of the 2 new contestants immediately following someone completing an octochamp run rather than them have to face an established champion – something they’ve already done once before.

Keith Bennett wrote:rant

Meh. James is good enough to beat Graeme, he just didn't today. I don't see the big deal.

Keith Bennett wrote:It looks as though there's a deliberate policy of trying to ensure anyone returning loses "legitimately" second time around.

I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of this sort of returning contestant, but this seems jumping to conclusions a little off the back of a tiny number of observations. What about Carl Dundas (of PROMATE fame), for instance?

Edited because I can't type.

Keith Bennett wrote:It looks as though there's a deliberate policy of trying to ensure anyone returning loses "legitimately" second time around. It seems rather rough that the consequence of a decision being challeneged is to be shafted in this way.

... or it could be just "tough" luck.

Keith Bennett wrote:Where people have lost out in this way it would surely be fairer to bring them back as one of the 2 new contestants immediately following someone completing an octochamp run rather than them have to face an established champion – something they’ve already done once before.

IIRC correctly you are referring to the ROADSIDE incident. In that case the lady concerned already had four victories and it would have been particularly unfair to have them scrubbed and she was also credited with a fifth victory, i.e. she was retrospectively credited with the 8 points and treated as having won the game. The incident took place very early in the series and she came back within the same series, which might have made a difference. Also, I think she was from the Leeds area, so it practical to treat her as a reserve (and presumably her other commitments were flexible), whereas it wasn't so practical with James.

Keith Bennett wrote: Where people have lost out in this way it would surely be fairer to bring them back as one of the 2 new contestants immediately following someone completing an octochamp run rather than them have to face an established champion – something they’ve already done once before.

I don't think that's the way it works , Keith. For one thing , the production team don't know in advance who is going to be an octochamp. Sure, Graeme is pretty good, but there's no guarantee that he's going to win 8 games ( conundrums are obviously his weak point). For another, there's no reason for them to deliberately pitch a returning contestant in against somebody they don't stand a chance against. In fact, it would probably generate more publicity if someone like James went on to qualify for the finals at the second attempt. It's probably just the luck of the draw.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:Early candidate for Handshake of the Year at the end there.

Also candidate for Best Dancing to the Clock Theme Music During An Easy Numbers Round too.

The winner of which receives a limited edition Ned Pendleton bobblehead figurine.

Interesting that Susie said TETANOID was OK, after this:

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 25&start=5

TOMATINE was OK in that round too, and the safer anagram of TETANOID, ANTIDOTE.

STIPULE in round 4, SHIATSU in round 6.

3rd Numbers Alt.: (((9 x 8) - 7) x 10) - 5 - 2 = 643

What would happen if someone lost, say, their fourth game in such a manner? It would seem very unfair to scrub their three victories if they were unable to bring them back in the same series at the end of an octochamp run.

Malcolm James wrote:What would happen if someone lost, say, their fourth game in such a manner? It would seem very unfair to scrub their three victories if they were unable to bring them back in the same series at the end of an octochamp run.

Bringing them back with a continuing streak would seem the obvious solution.

There must have been a small audience that day, as, yes Ryan, the lady behind the conundrum solver was Yvonne, who helps Saralee usher us around so they must have "doughnutted" as they say in Parliament. The girl on the right is also one of Saralee's little helpers.

Jim Treloar wrote:There must have been a small audience that day, as, yes Ryan, the lady behind the conundrum solver was Yvonne, who helps Saralee usher us around so they must have "doughnutted" as they say in Parliament. The girl on the right is also one of Saralee's little helpers.

Yes, there weren't many people in. A couple of my friends had tried to get audience tickets for that day, but they were told it was fully booked. The problem is that people often book audience tickets then don't bother to turn up. Before the fourth game of the day (Thursday's), Dudley said something to the effect that one of us had better get the conundrum, or they'd have to move everyone to the middle.

James was better than the score suggested - he saw DOMINATE just a couple of seconds after he'd declared 7, and he got the solution to 381 just before Rachel explained it. Would have gone to a crucial if he'd spotted those in the time.

AERATED leapt out at me, surprised they didn't get it.
(I've only just watched this thing)

Keith Bennett wrote: James could have beaten Andy on a crucial conundrum.

no way, I'm too good.

Well I got DICHOTOMY in about half a second so you never know...

Yeah. You know, I feel sorry for people like James and that Andrew guy (who lost to Tom Rowell because Tom had sautee* allowed and otherwise would have won, and on his second game lost to McCullagh.) They would (probably) have won and that they don't even get a teapot for what should have been a win is just unfair.

Andy McGurn wrote:

Keith Bennett wrote: James could have beaten Andy on a crucial conundrum.

no way, I'm too good.

James, you got that i was joking there right?